apparently excessive sensitivity… let me rephrase… Is it not relevant that various dictators and bad leaders remain highly popular with certain groups? Say for example Stalin among retirees in Russia, Che Guevara and Castro among certain members of the left… hell even Mao in China. Why therefore must we always view popularity with fickle masses? Also, I think that it is fair to assess leaders by objective standards. Can we not say that Bush has delivered peace at least to the American homeland? democracy no matter how imperfect to Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon? economic growth of 4.8 percent in the past quarter? and for all the wild-eyed chatter, a perfect human rights score again as over the past six years while Cuba has scored a perfect “bad” score?
Given that Cuba is now on the HR commission and the US is not, why is it unacceptable to compare the records of these nations and of their founding fathers Castro and Che with Bush? The former two remain highly popular with the left, is that right? If not, then should we put all of our faith in popularity polls for determining whether leaders are successful or not? I see no reason why this should not be discussed.